nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:History of Lovia
Nice.. Alexandru 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC) :Well, it's not as rich as Libertas', but that's because ours doesn't start with the prehistory and Romans. 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) PLEASE CHANGE THE HISTORY TO BE START IN 1655 WITH INHABITANTS SO ANYONE CAN CREATE TOWNS THAT STATRED IN 1840 Pierlot McCrooke 11:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC) :No, can't be. 11:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC) ::Please! Pierlot McCrooke 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) :::No Pierlot, this is a part of the site that must remain the same for the good of the site. We have a background that can't change. 11:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC) ::::Then we must start an new wikination here Pierlot McCrooke 12:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC) :::::Pierlot, you can't always get what you want, that just isn't real. Sometimes someone decides something for the best, and then you have to be able to say "okay, maybe that will work too". 12:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Realism The fact that there were no human inhabitants in the era before 1872/1876 is only realistic when this country was poldered Pierlot McCrooke 14:50, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :There are plenty of uninhabited islands, Pierlot. 14:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC) ::I mean the fact our country only has human inhabitants since 1872 - that is only realistic when our country was a polder Pierlot McCrooke 14:59, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :::Uhu :| 15:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::I suggest we make it so that Native Americans have inhabited the country before 1872 Pierlot McCrooke 15:06, June 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::: Uhm what I don't understand is this line: Some of these transports passed the Lovia archipelago, although nor the crew, nor the passengers were conscious. Why were they unconscious? I mean did the captain hit them all in the head with a big stick? or?? --Rasmusbyg 15:08, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::: @Pierlot: So what happened to them? Did Arthur I commit genocide or something? Semyon Edikovich 15:10, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :::::::The article was written when my English was still poor . I'll rephrase it. 15:12, June 16, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::According to the article there were no native americans in Lovia - even no humans inhabitants before 1872 - which is unrealistic Pierlot McCrooke 15:14, June 16, 2010 (UTC :::::::::::I read some article about human remains being found on a farm. Maybe they were killed by disease or something? Semyon Edikovich 15:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC) :: I have to agree that it's unrealistic that humans didn't inhabit Lovian Archipelago before 1872. It's unrealistic, because the archipelago is large and humans could cross Pacific ocean by a raft, which was proved by Thor Heyerdahl in 1947. Plus, Lovia is not very far from California. You have to mention that at least that human bones were found. Maybe they died from aggresive animals, disease (like Semyon mentioned) or simply age. If they had a culture you might make dozens of new articles about it. --Tramien (talk) 13:41, October 31, 2012 (UTC) ::: Hey guys, I have a nation of Lands of Nicholas that is largely based on a continent the size of Canada in the Pacific Ocean, and happens that Lovia is just off the coast of the continent. Would it be cool if we were to merge history of the two nations? Human settlements begin in the 2100s BCE on the western coast facing Japan, and slowly migrating eastward (towards the US shore), and people would settle in Lovia by maybe 13th century BCE? In the history section of my wiki, I had incorporated Lovia as a territory of the Lands of Nicholas historically, but after colonization and such, it declared independence in 1876. Would love to help on pre-history prior to 1876. Let me know if I can pitch in... The.canadian.roadgeek (talk) 17:29, October 31, 2012 (UTC) ::::Hey there. Your wiki is very impressive and well-written, but it's based on a rather different principle to Wikination. We're not an althistory, so we try and affect world events as little as possible, which is why Lovia is so small and rather isolationist - we keep in our own little bubble, so to speak. The Imaginary Lands of Nicholas, on the other hand, are the opposite, because of the large area and (comparatively) population. Therefore, we probably can't recognize Lovia even as being in the same 'universe' as ILON. Sorry about that. :/ --Semyon 20:34, October 31, 2012 (UTC) Short Its a bit of a short history page, isn't it? No epic battles, no huge political debates or colourful individuels (when I look at this page). I am sure there is much more to tell, isn't there? With some artistic freedom we could expand this article greatly and perhaps change a few things (like Pierlot's theory of the country having been inhabited by natives prior to European colonisation). What do the others say? BastardRoyale 11:54, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :If any of you has any cool ideas, don't hesitate and bring it up please. BastardRoyale 11:55, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::We just have a boring history . 11:56, June 18, 2010 (UTC) ::There is a wiki for cool histories: http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page 11:57, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :The page was written in 2007\2008 mostly, when your English was still poor as you said above in the upper section. Thats probably why the article is so short. Many monarchs don't have a decent biographical article (like Arthur I, our nations national hero and founder, or the famous Lucy). I think its a bloody shame, thats all. BastardRoyale 12:01, June 18, 2010 (UTC) :Countries with only 20000 population don't tend to have epic battles. . But I agree there could be more. Maybe a civil war? :S Or a territory which declared its independance? That might be hard to reconcile with other stuff that's been written though. Semyon Edikovich 14:21, June 18, 2010 (UTC) Perhaps. A war would be just one of the many possibilities. There is over 150 years of national history and I am sure there is much more to write abouut then just this current article. I just created a new historical figure: Sir John Lashawn. BastardRoyale 14:31, June 18, 2010 (UTC) WW2 Some people joined the U.S. Army during World War 2. How many? A squad, a platoon, a company? I'm asking 'cause I'd like to create an article about them.--George the Greek (talk) 10:00, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :Only few. But I'm not sure whether that was the first world war... There should be pages about them somewhere... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:05, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Scott Tremoyne. Llywelyn Rhys was one of three in the First World War. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:07, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :::No, not those who fought in WWI. I know about them, I was the one who wrote the article abou Rhys. In the text is written: Queen Lucy I kept to Arthur's policy and didn't enter World War II. Though, some Lovian men went to California to join the American troops in World War II, with the permission of the US Army and the Lovian queen. I'm asking about them!--George the Greek (talk) 10:27, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::Ow.. :P I guess Scott Tremoyne is the only one whom's written about. Use your imagination :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:29, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::I was thinking about a platoon lead by a lieutenant. Thanks a lot!--George the Greek (talk) 10:34, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I'll keep track of it :) No problem! --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:37, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Interesting idea! Digging it! The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 18:58, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::If you're interested, you can see what I've done so far here. Please give me your opinion!--George the Greek (talk) 17:00, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::::::::::It's coming on nicely, my Greek brother-from-another-mother! Keep up the good work. Nice to see a famous Lovian like Scott Tremoyne join in the action. I have an idea that may be fun... what if Lucy's son, future king Arthur III would be one of the Lovian volunteers (or maybe his brother Lucas)? Having royals on the front would be an interesting thing and besides, I'm pretty sure I read in their bio's that one of them went to military school. Would that be a nice touch? Later we can also write about some books and famous movies that where made about the adventures of the Prince and the actor and their men. Just my two cents, like the idea? The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 19:26, October 14, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::::Not bad idea, but I think it's to much. Anyway, King Arthur III didn't like military, although he attended a military academy (by the way we should establish one!). I'm probably going to add King Lucas, but I can't make him of a higher rank than McFadden.--George the Greek (talk) 21:32, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::Prince Lucas would make a fine addition to the team. And of course he doesn't need to have a higher rank then McFadden, who was the leader of the operation. And yes, we do need to establish a military academy. Especially after the events of the Lovian Civil War it would be a good thing for us to train promising young people willing to fight for their country in the arts of combat. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 07:12, October 15, 2012 (UTC) 60s to 90s Can we go with my ideas for the 60s to 90s? if you agree, I'll happily write them up here in full before we throw them onto the page. :) Hoffmann KunarianTALK 17:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC) :Go for it. I would have added your stuff too, but it wasn't written in a very article-y format and I didn't have a lot of time. :) --Semyon 17:17, October 25, 2012 (UTC) right: With food supply coming back to normal in 1961 and the centralised control of state activities, Lovia began to stabilise although the economy was still very fragile. The RLC of the 60s continued to practice the authoritarian management of the 50s and a key member of the RLC in 1962 called Bairn Sawyer, who was a Keynesian thinker and self proclaimed socialist, gained influence and began pushing economic policy, he did this with the support of socialist Governors and approval from the King. His policy outlined high spending while maintaining low taxes and began the subsidisation of weak industries to try and turn the economic focus in Lovia away from agriculture (the primary industry in Seven, Clymene, Kings and Sylvania) and towards manufacturing. The economy of Lovia grew dramatically bringing an end to the economic turbulence of the 50s to an end. The technology industry also took off in Sylvania and was a driving force in keeping Lovia up to speed with other first world nations. By 1965 most Lovians had had their pay increased dramatically, most middle class families could afford to buy and keep a car (most of which were imported from the U.S.) and crime went down along with poverty. However with the economic crisis seemingly over many youths adopted ideas from American popular culture and multiple protest groups appeared. While the largest groups were the feminist movements and gay rights movements, most fell flat and were put on the outlines of society although they did cause problems in more conservative states such as Seven and particularly in Oceana. However debt started to catch up with Sawyer in 1969 and the King lost confidence in him, to adapt Sawyer cut subsidisation to many industries, and many people lost their jobs as a result. Public debt stopped growing dramatically however private debt increased unnoticed at record rates. These actions combined brought the huge economic growth to an end and Sawyer continued to stay on the RLC but had ultimately lost favour with the Governors and most importantly with the King who had him expulsed from the council later on. In 1971 the economic growth of the states dropped dramatically and in 1972 growth was so low that inflation began to affect the economy dramatically, it was at this point that Bairn Sawyer was expulsed from the RLC with his economic plan being deemed to have failed. However the economy wasn't truly sent reeling until the 1973 oil crisis which hugely increased the cost of oil, many people stopped using their cars to save money and would not use them again until the 1980s. A nationwide depression had started with the states whose industries were primarily based on agriculture and manufacturing being hit the hardest, unemployment rose dramatically and many Lovians were terrified by the possibility of returning to a 1950s style depression which led to greater support for extremist groups who promised to solve the problems before they got worse. Major social problems during the 70s came from the unemployed and the middle class. After many mines had been shut (which had originally been an alternative fuel source for Lovia) and the Lovian based motor industry collapsed, ex-workers from these industries began heavy protests in Noble City demanding the government fix the problem. The middle class demanded that alternative fuel sources be found and it was in 1974 that oil and gas fields were found all across Lovia's exclusive economic zone however environmentalists heavily lobbied against use of the fields and due to a sympathetic leaning within the RLC little exploitation actually happened. In 1977 the feminist movement tried returning to Lovia as it had across the US. The movement operated out of California and payed members well to go and protest however the movement failed due to the opposition to their demands as many Lovians (especially the unemployed) felt that the movement was out of touch and that economic problems were a priority. However little was done about the economy and it was put down to a lack of leadership in the RLC and the state governments with no one ready to take the economic wheel of the nation. Recession spread into the 1980s, however in 1981 the Governors of the states came together to organise a plan for recovery and they formed a Liberal Faction in the RLC, this coalition was lead by Rita D. Frances throughout the 1980s and 90s with her brother Rick Frances. The Faction gained influence and brought around a change of policies, largely based around liberalisation of the economy and deficit reduction although had opposition from Socialists and Sawyerites. The effects of these policies was a stabilisation of the economy, a decrease in private debts and an increase in foreign trade. In 1984 opposition came to it's climax and many who were opposed to the policies created riots in Noble City as well as smaller ones in other State capitals attacking homes of supporters of the Liberal Faction as well as property of the corporate sponsors although these disturbances were dealt with. Due to this the Liberal Faction was at it's weakest in 1986 after the loss of Rita as Governor of Sylvania, however most States were recovering already and had seen growth in their economies. By the late 1980s the Lovian economy was back on track and was growing at a phenomenal rate and the increased wealth in the economy brought the energy crisis to an end by importing fuels and greater exploitation of local deposits (although this only went so far as pro-green policy makers protested against it). All states recover by the early 90s and steady growth happens from now onwards, energy is largely supplied by the gas and oil in the seas around Lovia, the services industries experiences the largest growth, taking the lead easily over the secondary industry. Centralisation is broken down to help the economy grow and the states enjoy their greatest amount of freedom for 40 years. Feminism comes back for round three and people are generally quite content. ... tbc... Hoffmann KunarianTALK 19:26, October 25, 2012 (UTC) I don't like this much. After all, we were very states-focused before 2007 (2003 currently, but hopefully it'll be changed), and there is no way for Sawyer to run all of Lovia. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC) In the 'new history' Kunarian, Oos and I were discussing in the pub (which is still open for debate, obviously) the famines of 1956 caused political chaos and both federal leaders and state leaders to lose control. After they ended, the king was able to impose his authority on the weakened states making Lovia much more centralised (tho' not as much as it is today). But I do agree with you, partially. --Semyon 08:00, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :Oh, also, the governors at the time included Anny Smith Peterson (socialist), Peter Ský (a progressive), and Jane Colbert (the Kings page mentions the 'socialist governors of the '50s and '60s'). I don't know about Clymene and Sylvania, but it seems likely Sawyer could have got support from the governors. --Semyon 08:14, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::Sawyer isn't controlling it all, the only thing he is doing really is making an agreement between states to keep taxes low, then applying nation wide subsidies and supplying governors with large amounts of spending ability. The rest is up to the governors especially on social policy, plus like Semyon said, he would've had a lot of support from Governors. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 10:50, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :::Clymene had Uncle James Moreland, who was very much a rightist figure. But his predecessor and successor were rather leftists. BTW Kunarian, would you be interested in helping me out with Brunant's WWII history? I like how you're working the details in this and it would work well with the history in the 40s. HORTON11: • 13:33, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::::Clymene probably wouldn't have felt as much of a rebound from the debt then but still would have to deal with a scary national debt going into the 70s. I'll take a look but I can't promise anything, I'm putting a lot of my effort in here. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 13:38, October 26, 2012 (UTC) Meh, I just don't like how the King hired some random guy to run the country. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:23, October 26, 2012 (UTC) : He didn't, and he isn't some random guy. He is part of the Royal Legislative Council (a kind of precursor to congress) and simply managed to gain favour with the king in a similar way that Thomas Wolsey did with Henry VIII, by doing all the boring work and working hard at it, when the king names him his economic advisor (or something) he sets up an economic program he thinks will rejuvinate Lovia, it does but leaves them with new problems and then the King gets annoyed at him and you know the rest. He didn't run the country, he executed economic policy. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 20:36, October 26, 2012 (UTC) :: This is the 1960s, not the 16th century. He should not be more than a member of the RLC. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:45, October 26, 2012 (UTC) ::: Time I still don't understand why you are opposing this, that's what he is. But like Congress having a minister of Commerce, he is like a minister for the economy. The reason he is a notable person is because his policy choices had a large effect on Lovia. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:58, October 26, 2012 (UTC) Position What would Lovia's position be in regards to the car:Brunanter government-in-exile during the war years? HORTON11: • 20:18, January 21, 2013 (UTC) :Probably supportive. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:30, January 22, 2013 (UTC) ::I think we should develop this period a bit more. There was a whole non-combat side to the was which we can explore. HORTON11: • 14:08, January 22, 2013 (UTC) New Changes I really don't like how Sawyer ruined everything while the liberals fixed everything. It's like the opposite of the former Kings graph where neoliberals ruined everything and Medvedev fixed everything. These changes were also made with minimal consensus. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:32, August 28, 2013 (UTC) :If you're interpreting it that way it's your problem, also there was much consensus although I do remember you did disagree but we dealt with your concerns about the situation. Also Medvedev's graph was very politically biased and setting a very hard line of what was going on when doesn't help things and is prone to people being biased politically or otherwise. :NOW, if you read what was added it clearly states that he ended economic crisis, modernised the economy towards manufacturing and services (although this did hurt farmers), helped us come into line technologically with first world nations and helped create a large and prosperous middle class. Negatively however he created a lot of public debt and I mean a lot, that debt is still around. :He was forced to stop most of his policies but kept some subsidisation and low taxes to still try and help. Of course the loss of subsidisation will mean the loss of jobs. Negatively and against Sawyers aims this caused private debts to rise. A new economic crisis starts and inflation causes extra problems. Sawyer can't really do what he wants, so who knows maybe he could have fixed things if he was allowed to, but simply he wasn't. In reality it was the economic problems compounded with the oil crisis that really finished Sawyers career. :Now after Sawyer the nation is in depression, the economy is still modernised and there's still a good middle class but there's also a heck of a load of unemployed. No one felt that they could lead Lovia with the direction Sawyer did so it was 8 years before anyone tried. That's where the liberal faction comes into play. :The liberals gave a huge amount of power back to the businesses to let them rebuild Lovia and probably helped people start businesses, they also probably raised taxes quite a bit and cut spending a lot. The positives of their policies where obviously the economy becoming stabilised and growing again, the huge private debts of the past falling to controllable levels (although public debt was still very high) and as an added bonus (and in many ways not really a result of the liberal factions policies although they obviously helped encourage it) an increase in foreign trade. :Now the cutting in spending and raising taxes caused upset for many and so the long unemployed and those who opposed her ideas rioted. The liberals were supporters of a strong police force and used it liberally to end the riots. In many ways the way the riots were dealt with probably cost Rita her governorship. :Honestly time there are pluses and minuses to everything. I hope this has helped you see that. The whole of the history is a guideline and open to interpretation. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 07:40, August 28, 2013 (UTC) The only people I remember fully supporting this proposal were you and Semyon. A few others might have agreed partially, but there wasn't consensus. This is the exact same thing as Medvedev's graph, but with the roles swapped. Yes, and that's fine. Another thing I hate about this proposal is that this one guy just started controlling the entirety of Lovia... states were quite powerful up until 2003 (should be 2008). This is where he ruins everything. Needs to be revised for a softer landing if we're keeping this screwed up proposal for history after all. Then the liberals (the group you and Semyon belong to economically) fix everything. The opposition makes sense but that still doesn't change that the liberals fixed all the problems (except, apparently, some unemployment). And Rita was the Governor of Sylvania, not in the position of Sawyer who just got to control all of Lovia. I hope this new history gets undone. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:20, August 28, 2013 (UTC) :Alright, do you have an alternative proposal? I'm quite happy to consider it if so, but at the moment Kunarian is the only person who's put anything forward for this part of the history. I suppose that the way it's written could look as though the writer had a bias, but I didn't notice it at all when I was adapting what Kunarian had written, and that's not because I'm some Randian right-wing ideologue. If you wish it will be very easy to nuance the history, which I agree is probably necessary. We can waffle on about Sawyer modernising the economy and put something in about the 'liberals' increasing social inequality. About Sawyer controlling everything: I don't think that's the case. In the US, the federal government broadly determines the principles that the economy is run by, but that doesn't mean that they control the entirety of the country. On the contrary, the states have significant power. The way I see it, up until 1943, the states were practically independent, then afterwards they were centralised to about the same extent as the US - allowing figures such as Sawyer to accumulate a fair amount of power - which continued up until 2010 when Dimitri's state reform pretty much eliminated states completely. --Semyon 14:44, August 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Not yet, but I might think of something. Since when did states stop being very autonomous after 1943? :s —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:17, August 28, 2013 (UTC) :::1955-1957 seems most logic, food crisis, economy collapse (states screwed up in crisis handling) > less autonomy, more centralisation. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:25, August 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Seems logic. Also going to Sawyer, he didn't control everything he just gained power over the economic and fiscal policies of Lovia, he had just as much influence as any other RLC member over legislation, how Lovia should be policed, transport and healthcare, etc. However he was a leading figure because his ideas were widely accepted by the RLC and Governors of the time which were mostly socialists or sympathetic to the socialist cause. He was only a man with a new and accepted ideology and a position that equates to the modern Ministry of Agriculture, Commerce, Finance combined. And if you want to add in the whole modernisation and inequality thing go ahead Semyon, I'm sure you'll be able to do it in such a way as not to present bias. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 18:01, August 28, 2013 (UTC) Since when did states stop being very autonomous in 1943? Since 1943, of course. :P Seriously though, this has been in the article text since October (ten months ago): 'In 1942, the queen retired, appointing Gilbert T. Brand as the first prime minister. Brand was a keen exponent of centralisation and states did lose a significant amount of their legislative authority.' Before then, the proposal was in the Pub - Oos and Kunarian seemed to approve - where anyone could have commented on it, or if they'd been temporarily inactive for some reason, any time in the next year. I don't mind (or not very much, at least) if you don't like my ideas but I find it rather sad if you don't even read them and then complain a year later about it. :'( --Semyon 18:56, August 28, 2013 (UTC) :History as it is is fine. Like many things, it could use some fine-tuning here and there and we could do so in a way that is satisfactory to all parties involved. As of right now, it seems well-thought of and adequately written. I see no objections whatsoever, other then that we could expand and add some more details here and there, and incoprate existing statesmen and historical figures in it some more to "link" articles on people and events better to the timeframe in which they lived\took place. The glorious First Consul of Rome (talk) 20:45, August 28, 2013 (UTC) :You don't remember me reading the entirety and complaining about when it was in the pub a year ago? (mocking -->) I don't mind if you disagree but I find it rather sad if you didn't even remember that I did read them and then complain a year later about me complaining. I've been skeptical of it/against it since it was written. :P Anyway, the main concerns I have are that a leftist, while making things better in the short term, ruined everything in the long term. To me, this implies that the people who wrote this history believe leftists don't know how to run a country, in addition to rightists then fixing the problems the leftist created. I'm okay with having leftist policies in the 1960s and rightist policies in the 1980s, but there should be a somewhat softer landing in the 1970s (Sawyer should not be all but exiled) and a rockier recovery in the 1980s. In addition, I'd change the 1960s history to not just being controlled by one guy (Sawyer) but a multitude of people like the liberals do in the 1980s. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:38, August 29, 2013 (UTC) ::You know the only person who seems to be politically biased is you, you feel offended should a leftist do anything bad and feel offended should a rightist do anything good, all the while ignoring the good the leftists do and the bad the rightists do. ::And you could not be more wrong. If anything Sawyer made things better in the short term and long long term but much worse in the long term (although looking at it in such a short-long term way is quite false as things are never black and white) and the liberal faction didn't 'fix everything' what you're implying there is that Sawyer caused problems that only a liberal agenda could fix which is wrong thinking indeed. ::Sawyer had policies which had certain outcomes which could be looked at having both bad and good outcomes and the Liberal faction had policies which had both bad and good outcomes. It's not a case of problems being created by one and fixed by the other as the problems that the Liberals fixed where more of created by the ousting of Sawyer, the 1973 oil crisis and a lack of economic direction. ::On your last point I don't think we should pander to political bias, we might as well dull all our political history down otherwise. There wouldn't be a softer landing in the 1970s as the oil crisis of 1973 threw the problems that weren't particularly large before into massively large problems afterwards. And the recovery in the 1980s wasn't quick the states are only stated to have mostly begun recovering in 1986, which considering that the liberals took power in 1981 isn't quick at all. ::Also the 1960s history does not need to be changed, Sawyer is supposed to be one of those larger than life characters who makes an imprint on Lovian history, like Winston Churchill in the UK. Winston, like Sawyer did not make all the policies of their times but they were bloody important to the policies that were made. Sawyer didn't control everything either (and I don't know how many times I have to repeat this), he was only in direct control of economic matters like a Minister of today. And what 'multitude of people' in the Liberals, the only mentioned peoples were Rita D. Frances and Rick Frances, the latter not being that important really in the 1980s. And need I point out that the key Sawyerites are supposed to be the socialist Governors of the time and Sawyer himself of course. We don't need to write down a million names, you just need to read what's actually been written. ::On a final note I'm going to begin fleshing out Lovian history even more by writing books on the matters (not written by Lukas of course though, I'm not egotistical enough for that :L) of times gone past. Here I will be able to detail much more on the governments of the 1960s and 1980s, who Bairn Sawyer was and his ideas, who Rita D. Frances was and further back in history too, such as the declaration of the Lovian States and the Cartel period that caused so much havoc. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 11:27, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :::@TM: if I overlooked your comments at any point, I'm sorry. As far as I know I haven't, and I don't remember you commenting at all on it. --Semyon 12:22, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :::(mocking -->) You know, the only two people who seem to be politically biased is you, since you think that whenever someone disagrees and thinks that a leftist should not have damaged the economy so badly is politically biased. On a more serious note, don't make false accusations. I'm not offended that the leftist did something bad, I'm offended that they ruined things in the long term (1970s), only for the rightists to come and fix them in the 1980s. That seems blatantly biased to me. Even if the leftists did some good, it was wiped away by the disaster in the 1970s, and if the rightists did some bad, they still fixed all the problems from Sawyer (except some unemployment?) according to this history. :::(mocking -->) And you could not be be more wrong. That is exactly what I said. Sawyer made things better in the short term and worse in the long term. The history clearly says that the liberals spearheaded this great recovery and ended up directly or indirectly fixing almost all of the issues. :::That doesn't matter since the article all but says that Sawyer's policies screwed up the economy, leading to him being ousted. The oil crisis and "lack of direction" only compounded it. :::Hahaha, the bias is so clear in the current article. Making a softer landing would not add more bias. Anyway, I think that Lovia was not so dependent on oil as other countries. It wouldn't have had as much of an impact as in other countries. :::We're talking about economic control here, not other types of control. Rita Frances was just the governor of Sylvania, there would be many other people who were in other states or the RLC. :::Anyway, I repeat. There is a clear problem with Sawyerite policies making the economy go downhill due to debt followed by a recovery after the Liberals take policies. I'm astonished that you can't see that. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:47, August 29, 2013 (UTC) ::::But what you are describing is simply not the case, I've said that several times and explained to you. You seem to me to be very politically biased and wanting only a good light to be shown on the events concerning leftists despite the already positive implications but want an even rockier recovery for the liberals, which comes across as very politically biased. No reason other than left and right leanings is being politically biased. ::::If it's the wording you are worried about then I shall have a look at that. Also Lovia is dependent heavily on other countries especially because of it's environmentalist leaning and oil only being discovered later on (which again is not exploited really due to the environmentalist leaning). And yes there are other people in the states and RLC but Time are you really suggesting we list every last one of them?! ::::And again Sawyerite policies didn't make the economy go downhill and there was a recovery by the liberals however it wasn't a flash recovery, like most, it was slow. A recovery somewhat like the one in the UK at the moment it's been 4 years since the original crisis and we're only just starting to stabilise (not really grow though). In Lovia there were 8 years between the oil crisis and liberal faction taking the political wheel for the economy to get a little better (although still in recession) and they helped foster a stabilisation in 6 years! ::::There shall be no changes other than wording, as that seems to be the real thing that's upsetting you as far as I can see. And I repeat we should not pander to political bias. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:35, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :::::I don't see how you can say that. The article simply says things like "Bairn Sawyer, having been blamed for the crisis, was expelled from the RLC". This shows extreme backlash and all but says that he caused the crisis. Then, "The effects of these liberal policies was a stabilization of the economy, a decrease in private debts and an increase in foreign trade." More below. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:15, August 29, 2013 (UTC) Also, you never had consensus on this. So please don't write any books. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:49, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :There is consensus, I don't think we should water things down just because you feel offended and I shall be writing books. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 15:35, August 29, 2013 (UTC) ::TM, I suggest you stop the 'mockery', firstly because it's pretty childish (excuse the Pierlotism) and it doesn't help your argument, and secondly because it's pretty annoying having to read through the convo to find the quotes that you're referencing. Apart from that, I don't think there's anything else to mention. --Semyon 17:29, August 29, 2013 (UTC) Hahaha, I could not stop myself from repeating silly quotes like "The only person who seems politically biased is you" back to Kunarian because he's wrong. I labeled it so it wouldn't be read as a real part of my argument. :s Back to consensus. You have the support of Semyon, and a few people (Donia, Oos) who think it's fine. I haven't seen anything from Horton, Frijoles, Marcus, Yuri, etc. I wouldn't really say I feel offended personally, I just think it's bad that leftist policy indirectly causes a recession (even with the oil crisis... we were never very dependent on oil) while rightist policy makes it recover. But, on the positive side... since I just saw some changes by you and Semyon, I am MUCH happier. It looks pretty good now (the things about feminism are kind of irrelevant to the rest of the history, a "depression" caused by the oil crisis should be reduced to recession, et cetera). I'd also get real consensus including the other left-leaning users of the site. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:15, August 29, 2013 (UTC) :Well I'm glad you're a little more content. Also the oil crisis would have heavily affected Lovia as we didn't exploit our oil and tankers (which we needed to use for trade at the time), trucks and other vehicles which make economies work much better where practically disabled by the crisis so I say we leave it. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 21:53, August 29, 2013 (UTC) Help required I began working on the section following Dimitri's abdication, the period from August this year until the here and now. We need more sections however on Lovia's later history, the period following Dimitri's first abdication, the rise and fall of fascism, Republican sentiments growing and calming down. There needs to be more information on the Civil War, it's causes and effects, Then the aftermath, too. Our usually liberal governments falling, conservatives taking over. Our three CCPL-led governments, which is rather remarkable. And the fall of Ygo and his failed government. Who here could help? King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 13:45, September 11, 2013 (UTC) :Can't you do your own Congress? Tbh, I don't really remember that much of it :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:47, September 11, 2013 (UTC) ::It's all a blur man! Basically I just got elected, was starting to get used to the idea of being this nation's prime minister and boom... along came the trial and gone was I. Was it even more then two weeks of my actual rule? Most of it was me governing "in absentia" until congress was fed up. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 15:51, September 11, 2013 (UTC) ::: :P Seems like you remember enough to do the Donia epoch :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:00, September 11, 2013 (UTC) Pics? Perhaps we could add more images, like in here. HORTON11: • 19:15, January 28, 2014 (UTC) :Most definetely! That would improve the article massively. But, even more importantly: it needs to be finished. See the sections about the Civil War, and the Medvedev coup, are not written yet as it seems. This is a huge flaw. King Sebastian I of Lovia (talk) 20:46, January 28, 2014 (UTC) ::If no one object I'll just go ahead and add more pictures. I'm doing that in Brunant so I might as well do that here, HORTON11: • 18:59, November 7, 2014 (UTC) :::No objection :) --OuWTB 16:03, November 8, 2014 (UTC) ::::Why would anyone have objections? I trust you won't uglify this page with bad pictures :P --QytokantFRÅGOR??? 18:37, November 8, 2014 (UTC) :::::Of course now. I'll just need to find more pics on 20th century history. SOmething on the famines, the war years and more. HORTON11: • 18:41, November 8, 2014 (UTC) 1990s Seems like the 90s is our most underdeveloped piece of history here. Mind if I add more stuff to bring it up to the level of Kunarian's work on the other decades? horton11 16:33, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : And I really should get to adding more pictures, as I promised quite a while back. horton11 16:34, September 29, 2017 (UTC) The whole history still needs a lot of work. Bairn Sawyer and "the liberals" in particular need to be nerfed. But yes, working on the nineties would be good. I consider them to be quite a cute decade. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 16:59, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : Kunarian put in lots of work to the page, and he seems to have done his research, so I don't really think we should be replacing stuff other than minor tweaks here and there, grammar etc. horton11 17:10, September 29, 2017 (UTC) :: And of course, work on socio-cultural should be present over just political-economic history. Did we have student protests in 1968 as in Europe? Was there opposition to the Vietnam War? The rise of our film and music industries, development of sports and other cultural organizations. horton11 17:14, September 29, 2017 (UTC) Again, Bingbang put works into his pages. Lots of work =/= keep. As I argued a few years ago Kunarian's version is very biased, Bairn Sawyer needs to be nerfed, and there are too many things where Kunarian's ideology saves the day from an ideology he opposes. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:53, September 29, 2017 (UTC) : Yeah, but Bigbang didn't put good work into his pages. Lots of work doesn't meen we should keep it, but lots of good work is a good case for. I rarely agree with Kunarian's politics, but he has put in lots of effort into researching and integrating his pages withing a level of realism (something Bigband never did). horton11 19:01, September 29, 2017 (UTC) ::I think where work of a reasonable quality has been done we shouldn't simply remove it. That doesn't mean we can't alter and improve things, certainly if you think Kunarian presented things in a biased way. I admit there was probably not enough discussion regarding the history Kun and I implemented, though that was also partly the fault of others for not engaging with our proposals. Expanding the history to the 90s seems like a great idea. --Semyon 19:44, September 29, 2017 (UTC) I did criticize it at the time but Kunarian wrote a lot essays defending it that didn't convince me at all. Sawyer and "the liberals" are the main two things that need to have their importance nerfed, heavily. Additionally some things like the "return of feminism" or something seem irrelevant and too discrete rather than continuous. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:56, September 29, 2017 (UTC)